[DMSmillie]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

This one's absolutely false. I myself spend considerable amount of time daily adding value to common Internet sties, and no one's paying me a cent for it.
Also, I believe both you and me create something valuable to other readers just by discussing this topic. Is anyone paying you money for this?

Posting in forums is hardly comparable to writing a novel, or composing a symphony, or painting a landscape. Nor are you being hampered from posting in this way by copyright laws.

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

It doesn't mean those laws are a good idea either.

Getting kind of circular here. You used the expense as an example of what is bad about copyright law. Andrew pointed out that expense doesn't automatically mean the law is bad. That isn't the same as saying it means the law is good - it simply counters your original reasoning.

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

I don't believe the world should keep being adjusted so authors can live entirely off their works. 1. If other work pays more, they're free to do it instead. 2. It still seems to me that we're losing more than we're gaining by letting some people get a lock on different stories.

What do you mean "keeps being adjusted"? If you mean the length of time that copyright runs, fair enough, but that's a totally separate issue to whether or not copyright should exist. Copyright either exists, or it doesn't.

Why should authors, songwriters, painters, playwrights, etc, not be entitled to make a living from their artistic work?

Do you really believe that all artistic endeavour should be a hobby, squeezed into whatever time people have left over after doing a regular job, cleaning the house, looking after children, etc, etc, etc? Many, perhaps most, of the artistic works we value in the western world wouldn't exist if their originators had had to do all that. Historically, most artists of all kinds were only able to be artistically creative because either they were born into a family with sufficient money to free them from these day to day needs, or they were lucky enough to attract a rich patron whose money similarly freed them from the need to earn a living in some other way. Even as things are now, there's still a long "apprenticeship" with little money coming in for most who seriously try to be creative, whether that's writing, painting, composing, etc. You would make that "apprenticeship" a permanent state of affairs. How many do you think would persevere without at least the dream of being the next Jane Austen, or Asimov, or J K Rowling, with the possibility of being able to earn a decent living from their writing, and be free to write all of the time, instead of an hour here, an hour there, when other commitments allow?

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

Only my situation looks a whole lot more plausible to me

Of course it does, since you imagined it.

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

Many people don't have a whole range of abilities Rowling needed to create HP. One person may be very bad with character descriptions, but write brilliant dialogue, another can't describe people, but can make places really come to life. Currently those people are forbidden from improving on single aspects of existing work, which they may have talent for, the creativity is instead restricted to having to create the whole thing. This is just an example of one of many restrictions.

What is currently preventing those who might only be good at some aspects of writing a novel, to use that example, from getting together with others who are good at other aspects, and writing a novel together? Why does it have to be based on something someone else wrote? There are many examples of books being written collaboratively, for many different reasons. A recent and well known example is DRACULAS, written collaboratively by four authors.

Also - why does the argument "If something else pays better, you're free to go and do it instead" only apply to those with the ability to create a whole novel, and not equally to those who are only good at one aspect of writing?

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

...all books having print runs only after they gained fame as ebooks.

The growing access to "print on demand" publishing for individual authors means that any new author, with minimum outlay, can publish their book both in print and as an ebook, without having to wait for someone else to "cherry pick" it from the ebook bestseller lists. And, indeed, with no copyright laws, what would there be to prevent those doing the "cherry picking" from publishing their own version of the book and keeping all the proceeds? What benefit would there be, there, to the original author?

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

One thing worth mentioning is that in the absence of copyright the discrepancy between best-selling authors and new ones is projected to be much smaller, ie. the best-sellers aren't selling as much and gaining as much money, but many more small authors gain enough money to be encouraged to create more.

Ummm... I'd suggest that that is already happening, as more and more independent authors take the self-publishing route. The knowledge that their investment of time and effort to write the book is protected by copyright law is encouraging more and more people to write and publish books. I wonder how many would do so if they knew that as soon as others started to buy their books, those others would be free to produce their own versions?

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

Now, I wonder if J.K.Rowling is still encouraged by monetary gains to write the next book, at the level at which she's now? It looks like she has enough money to specifically prohibit sale of ebooks of Harry Potter for what seems to be mostly luddite reasons. Is this good for the society as a whole? Is copyright working as intended in her case?

What is the problem with her not wanting to publish the books in ebook format? The books are still out there for people to read and enjoy, the films are there for people to watch and enjoy. Nothing has been kept unavailable. She gets paid, we get to read her books. What isn't working there?